Interference 103,482
evidence from Opening Brief At Final Hearing For Party Ewen,
filed May 19, 1999 (Paper No. 95), and all statements which
rely on this evidence:
(1) Declaration of William J. Gauthier, dated
September 28, 1998, including attachments A and B thereto
(Ewen Exhibit X);
(2) Second Declaration of William J. Gauthier, dated
November 19, 1998 (Ewen Exhibit Y), including Randall, James,
POLYMER SEQUENCE DETERMINATION Carbon-13 NMR Method, New York,
pp. 1-7 and 29-58 (1977)(Ewen Exhibit Z).
2. Claim interpretation
It is essential to determine the metes and bounds of the
subject matter claimed before considering its patentability
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, first paragraph.
See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971)(claims first must be analyzed to determine exactly what
subject matter they encompass); In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260,
1262, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974)(whether the issue is
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or 112, first paragraph,
first decide what the claims include within their scope); In
re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1992)(it
is wrong to analyze claimed subject matter based on
39
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007